Fr Joseph Iannuzzi on the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI): A critical analysis.
Earthrise from Apollo 8 by William Anders (1968)
Introduction
CONTEXT
Late in November 2023 I happened to watch a video presentation given by Fr Joseph Iannuzzi and hosted by Dr Michael James. This was Part 2 of a three part series posted on the Divine Will Era Ministries YouTube channel.
I already knew about Fr Iannuzzi. I have a hard copy of his doctoral dissertation, The Gift of Living in the Divine Will in the Writings of Luisa Piccarreta. My aunt had put me onto this work. After reading it and listening to a few of his podcasts, I came to respect Father for his clarity and piety. For me and many others he has been a sure guide for understanding the writings of Luisa in accordance with Catholic tradition.
For years I saw him as someone who had both spiritual depth and psychological balance. I appreciated his warnings to steer clear of false prophets and opportunists who run “false doomsday websites”, sometimes for financial gain. I agreed with Father that the fear and disturbance that these sorts of websites typically encourage are not from Our Lord.
After that I moved on. I don’t mean that I went “off” Fr Iannuzzi. His dissertation is still there as a stable point of reference on my bookshelf and in the back of my mind. If you’re anything like me, you receive what’s good from one person and next season you move onto other writers and role models. Though you might end up circling back.
As for Dr Michael James, at this point in time I don’t know anything about him except that he “works with Fr. Iannuzzi and has a ministry” (positive things are said in the comments section here). I have seen a short video of him visiting Fr Iannuzzi after saying goodbye to his daughter.
[Edit December 23 2024: The content of that video suggested that he’s a lecturer of some sort—he said he had to take time off teaching to visit Fr Iannuzzi, and he showed a brief clip inside a college. The short video has since been made private, however.
I couldn’t find any information about this “Dr Michael James”. It would help if I knew which university he attended or where he works, or the title of his doctoral thesis, or the title of any one of his publications. Or even just his area of expertise. I will continue to look into this. I will try reaching out to him via the comments section in the videos he is in.]
THE VIDEOS
The description of the video series found under each video on YouTube is as follows:
For the very first time a Catholic theologian offers to the Christian faithful a public 3-part series video presentation on intelligent alien life throughout the cosmos and the Christian faith. The theme of this series: "The Vatican, Christianity and Aliens." Citing from Christian and official sources, Fr. J.L. Iannuzzi, STL, S.Th.D. demonstrates the existence of intelligent alien life.
To say that Fr Iannuzzi “demonstrates the existence of intelligent alien life” is an overstatement. It’s more accurate to say that he “argues for” the existence of intelligent alien life.
Here are the links to the three parts and the number of views as of March 15, 2024:
Part 1 premiered on Sep 29, 2023. 17,497 views. [Edit: 20,389 views as of Dec 23rd 2024]
Part 2 premiered on Nov 23, 2023. 8,098 views. [Edit: 9,496 views as of Dec 23rd 2024]
This is the video we’ll be focusing on.
Part 3 premiered on Dec 27, 2023. 10,400 views. [Edit: 11,402 views as of Dec 23rd 2024]
MY REACTION
Several times during my first watch of the video (Part 2) I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. Iannuzzi’s* talk was riddled with basic logical errors and quite a few errors of fact! I noted some of these and watched the video again. I typed out a transcript. I looked again. More odd things began to surface. Iannuzzi appeared to be subtly misleading his audience (unintentionally?) and failing to give the proper context when it came to some of the “evidence” he was giving for his position. I dug deeper. The more fact-checking and critical thinking I applied to the transcript, the more problems I found.
*Referring to Father Iannuzzi by surname only should not be taken as a sign of disrespect. It is normal practice in writings of an academic nature.
The whole thing began to look bizarre. And emotionally I was a bit torn. How could a priest this qualified, with this many academic achievements (see here), fail to notice his research mistakes? How could he not be aware of the undergraduate level — yes, undergraduate level — philosophical errors that he was making? What was going on here? Was I out of my mind?
I don’t believe so. I was a bit torn because on one hand, I felt it was my duty to set things straight — to uncover these logical and factual errors for the public and show people that Iannuzzi’s arguments were deeply flawed. And I don’t mean that they were respectable arguments that another critical thinker might take issue with, something that often happens between academics. Rather, I mean that most of the arguments didn’t even rise to that level of respectability. On the other hand, I didn’t want to cause embarrassment. Nor did I feel comfortable with the idea of “correcting” a priest.
WHAT TO DO?
I sought counsel from a number of wise people and after a period of discernment I decided to take their advice and publish. Two months ago in the comments section under the video, I had offered to do an interview in response (I indicated my belief that Fr Iannuzzi had misinterpreted Nicholas of Cusa, though as it turned out, that was only the tip of the iceberg) but I got no reply. There were some important considerations that friends had pointed out to me:
It is appropriate to reply publicly to statements made in the public forum (my thanks to Prof. Larry Chapp).
If Iannuzzi had misled people or given flawed arguments, then people deserve to know. Thousands have already seen the video.
In the intellectual or academic sphere where the truth of ideas is tested, if a priest turns out to be superior as an intellectual (because he has done more research, has a better handle on the discipline, offers better arguments, etc.), that is accidental to the fact that he is a priest. In other words, questioning the intellectual integrity of an argument does not amount to questioning the spiritual authority of the priest who made the argument.
It is not my desire or intention for Fr Iannuzzi to end up with egg on his face. But it is not unjust if that should happen. Rather, it is Iannuzzi’s fault for publishing shoddy material. Each of us is responsible for what we put our name to.
Given the above, there is nothing essentially uncharitable about what I was proposing to do. Granted, reflecting on our motivations is necessary, since it is always possible to do things uncharitably.
At this point you may be thinking: the more likely scenario, Dr Triffett, is that you are out of your mind. Or you are letting your emotions get the better of you. Perhaps you are stressed, or not seeing things clearly for some other reason. Indeed you are probably out of your depth. This is Fr Iannuzzi after all. Go home, go to sleep. Let it go. Whatever you do, don’t embarrass yourself over this.
I understand if that’s what you’re thinking, given the context. And I agree that nobody should simply take my word for it when it comes to the sorts of claims that I am making. People need to look at the evidence themselves. That is my purpose in these posts: to exhibit the evidence and present arguments to support my case.
AN UNNECESSARY OBSTACLE
It gets worse. It even appears that Fr Iannuzzi took certain passages of Servant of God Luisa Piccarreta out of context, and falsely interpreted a couple of sentences by St Annibale di Francia, in support of his belief in the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence (ETIs). If that is what Iannuzzi has done, then this is a serious matter. In a later installment we will look at the evidence that led me to that conclusion (Part 2, from 11:44 onwards).
I know. I didn’t expect that either. And yes, it is bizarre that Fr Iannuzzi of all people would have gotten things wrong in this area, his area of expertise (the writings and spirituality of Luisa)! And it is both ironic and concerning that the same scholar priest who (rightly) warns about the dangers of taking passages of Luisa’s writing out of context and spreading erroneous interpretations would do precisely that. (Again, these claims of mine are yet to be substantiated. I don’t want anyone to simply take my word for it. My purpose here is to explain the context of the work you are reading and give some indication of its contents.)
We are all human. In this case, I think, Father got over-excited about the (possible) existence of ETIs. And in his enthusiasm he left behind sound reasoning and sound principles of interpretation. Not to mention pastoral prudence. For (1) he was speaking authoritatively to a wide audience. And (2) he didn’t consider the fact that using (or misusing) passages from Luisa Piccarreta’s writings to support his view that ETIs exist will inevitably create obstacles for people who might otherwise have been open to the writings.
It is perfectly rational and well within the boundaries of orthodoxy to believe that the Catholic faith, understood correctly (including everything we know about God’s revealed will for man and creation), excludes the possibility of ETIs existing in our universe. (Whether God has the absolute power to create ETIs is another matter. One of Iannuzzi’s undergraduate-level errors in the interview is to conflate absolute possibility with suppositional possibility, and God’s absolute power [potentia absoluta] with his ordained power [potentia ordinata]. The error pops up multiple times. But we will get to that.) And it is neither against reason nor against revelation to hold that it is certain (or extremely likely) that God in His wisdom has created man (descended from Adam and Eve) as the only species of rational animal, the uniquely embodied image of God.
Let exclusivism be the claim that the Catholic faith, understood correctly, excludes the possibility of ETIs existing in our universe. Non-exclusivism is the claim that the Catholic faith, understood correctly, does not exclude the possibility of ETIs existing in our universe. In both cases, a commitment to the Catholic faith is assumed.
It is neither against reason nor against revelation to be an exclusivist. Exclusivism is neither irrational nor heretical. It is neither eccentric nor laughable. Nor is it a “fringe” belief amongst Catholics. Iannuzzi has said that certain passages in Luisa’s writing imply that ETIs exist or might exist. This amounts to the claim that certain passages in Luisa’s writing contradict exclusivism. For “ETIs might exist” contradicts exclusivism, as does “ETIs exist” (it does not contradict exclusivism to say that God has absolute power to create ETIs).
One likely effect of Iannuzzi’s argument, then, is that an obstacle has been placed between (a) the writings of Luisa and (b) all Catholics who are committed to exclusivism or strongly inclined toward it. Iannuzzi did indicate that the question of whether Luisa’s writings are true and her spirituality authentic is separate to the question of whether ETIs exist. But that does not remove the obstacle. To agree with Iannuzzi that certain passages in Luisa’s writing imply that ETIs exist or might exist, is already to believe that the two questions are not separate questions, after all.
Iannuzzi cannot have it both ways. He should either (1) confirm that the two issues are separate and keep the writings of Luisa out of his arguments for the (possible) existence of ETIs or (2) concede that the two issues are connected, after all.
The following imaginary dialogue might help the reader appreciate the significance of the situation that Iannuzzi has created:
“What do you think of the writings of Luisa Piccarreta?”
“I was already suspicious of them. But now I’ve heard that Luisa believes in aliens. This is not hearsay. It was confirmed by the official Vatican-supported world expert on Luisa Piccarreta! That decides it for me. No authentically Catholic mystic would receive messages from our Lord saying that God created ETIs. I advise you to stay clear!”
AN OBJECTION
But you are begging the question. Suppose Luisa’s writings actually do support the view that ETIs exist. If someone then demonstrates that this is the case, that demonstration neither puts an obstacle in the way nor inhibits the acceptance of Luisa’s writings. If people have an issue with belief in ETIs, then of course they are going to have an issue with Luisa’s writings once they understand them. But either Luisa is right to say (or imply) that ETIs exist, or she is not. If she is right, then whoever has an issue with belief in ETIs is in the wrong, in which case the obstacle lies within the person who has the issue. If she is wrong, then the obstacle is in Luisa’s writings, and one who correctly explains Luisa’s position (or implied position) on ETIs does not thereby place an obstacle between the writings and the person who is unsure about them.
RESPONSE
That is a valid point. I concede that the link that Iannuzzi makes between Luisa’s writings and the existence or possible existence of ETIs — i.e., his claim that certain passages in Luisa’s writings imply that ETIs exist or might exist — becomes an added obstacle if and only if Iannuzzi is reading that link into Luisa’s writings. There are three scenarios to consider.
Luisa’s writings support exclusivism and therefore the view that ETIs do not exist.
Luisa’s writings neither support nor contradict exclusivism.
Luisa’s writings contradict exclusivism and support the view that ETIs exist or might exist.
Recall that exclusivism is the claim that the Catholic faith, understood correctly (including everything we know about God’s revealed will for man and creation), excludes the possibility of ETIs existing in our universe. When we ask whether Luisa’s writings support exclusivism, for argument’s sake we assume that Luisa’s writings are true, and we understand that “everything we know about God’s revealed will for man and creation” includes the teachings of Luisa on the subject.
If the third scenario is true then Iannuzzi is not reading a link into Luisa’s writings. Rather, he is bringing into view a link—an implication—that is objectively founded in Luisa’s writings. But if the first or second scenario is true, then Iannuzzi is reading the link into Luisa’s writings.
A RESEARCH QUESTION
In order to prepare a detailed response to the video, I re-read all 36 volumes of Luisa’s Book of Heaven from the beginning to the end (I had already read and re-read most of the work prior to that, over about 20 years) along with The Hours of the Passion, The Virgin Mary in the Kingdom of the Divine Will and Luisa’s letters. Finally I re-read Fr Iannuzzi’s dissertation. I looked through all of this material carefully and always in light of my research question: which of the three scenarios is true?
I came to the conclusion that the first scenario is true. Luisa’s writings support exclusivism. In fact, there are several lines of argument beginning from different passages and themes in the writings and converging on the same conclusion.
My contention is (1) that Iannuzzi is wrong to claim that the writings support the (possible) existence of ETIs and (2) that to make such a claim is to place an unnecessary obstacle in the way between the writings and Luisa’s potential readers. However, it is not strictly necessary to demonstrate that Luisa’s writings support exclusivism (the first scenario) in order to demonstrate the truth of my contention. It is enough to demonstrate that the third scenario is false. If the third scenario is false then either Luisa’s writings support exclusivism (first scenario) or they neither support not contradict exclusivism (second scenario).
In one of the later chapters I will demonstrate that in his talk, Fr Iannuzzi gives us no reason to believe that the writings support the (possible) existence of ETIs. If everything goes to plan, the final chapters will provide comprehensive support for my contention that the writings support exclusivism and therefore the view that ETIs do not exist.
Note that this particular research question forms only part of my investigation, albeit an important one.
THE STAKES
In light of the above, it is clear that the stakes are high. Either I come out of this analysis looking like a fool, or someone else does.
Whatever the outcome, let it be for the glory of God. Nobody who wants to live in the Divine Will should be fundamentally opposed to being humbled and made to look like a fool. The ego that feeds on its own glory instead of the Holy Will of God: who cares if that gets “destroyed by facts and logic”? I shouldn’t care in the slightest; nor should Fr Iannuzzi.
Mind you, I have not set out to humiliate anyone. I have set out to set things straight. It is right and just to let the truth of things shine. If someone — me or anyone else — gets in the way of the Truth and their ego or reputation is damaged in the process, then who’s fault is that? It’s the fault of the person who got in the way of the Truth instead of making way for It.
The purpose of this work is to get to the truth of the matter, where “the matter” is certain claims made by Fr Iannuzzi in the video series, especially Part 2. I am not interested in “winning for the sake of winning”. I am interested in the truth: finding it, clarifying it, communicating it, defending it. I am not encouraging anyone to “take sides” or to engage in any other form of petty tribalism. That’s the last thing we need in the Church today.
THE AUDIENCE
I will proceed through the transcript of the video in chronological order [Edit 23rd Dec 2024: actually, I will not proceed in strict chronological order]. My critical analysis should be of interest to the following groups:
Those who are interested in the question of whether belief in ETIs is compatible with the Catholic faith, or more generally with Christianity.
Those who are interested in the philosophical and theological history of this question.
Those who are interested in the writings of Luisa Piccarreta for one reason or another (e.g., a devoted reader, someone who has concerns, or an impartial researcher).
CARITAS IN VERITATE
Even if every judgement of mine in these chapters proves to be correct, it does not follow that Fr Iannuzzi is a bad person or an unholy priest. Nor does it follow that we should no longer read his writings or listen to his talks. But I don’t think anyone should be “following” Fr Iannuzzi — just as I don’t think anyone should be “following” any other mere human, however holy and well-educated he or she may be.
1 Brothers and sisters, I could not address you as people who live by the Spirit but as people who are still worldly—mere infants in Christ. 2 I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. 3 You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere humans? 4 For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere human beings?
5 What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. 6 I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow. 7 So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. 8 The one who plants and the one who waters have one purpose, and they will each be rewarded according to their own labor. 9 For we are co-workers in God’s service; you are God’s field, God’s building.
1 Cor 3:11-9 (NIV).
May Charity and Truth incarnate overcome every human will that stands in His Way.
In the next post (Chapter 1) I show how Iannuzzi appears to engage in “false advertising” right from the beginning of Video 2, and fails to deliver on his promise. For he is unable to show that there is any Patristic support whatsoever for his view that ETIs exist (or might exist) on other planets or even for the view that there are “multiple worlds”. [Edit May 3rd, 2024: The content I intended to deliver in the “next post” will actually appear after a few more posts that lay the foundations. But I will get there!]
